teknia

Here's a better idea. Increase the value of the city. Get rid of the graffiti, vacant houses, etc. People move back to the city and it increases revenue. If you want a city that has prospered then look to Boise, ID. One of the cleanest cities I have ever seen.

I have little hope they will catch this person. Here's an idea. Put hidden surveillance around town. Put out items such as an expensive bike along with a hidden tracking device. Find the person, find the loot, stop their income. This will slowly defund the drug economy. Release the bad guys when they do their minimum sentence in the heart of Alaska. Problem solved.

That is why you have to assimilate the whole text on judging not the fortune cookie version. Go read the opening to I Cor. Paul is rebuking the church for being arrogant, puffed up in knowledge, divisive. Paul is indeed judging them for their behavior. Notice the sarcasm in Paul's voice in I cor 4:8-13. Now ask yourself, what is Paul's intention? Is here merely judging Corinth because they have sinned? Or is there another motive?

To answer your question Zane, I think the LGBT community responsible for the sign ought to set up practical ways to dialogue with their opponents. Their needs to be mutual respect between the two parties. No name calling or perjorative terms. Respect doesn't mean condone but it does mean a civil agreement. There also needs to be a respect of other people's conscience. The sooner we can come to this agreement the better off we will all be

If you can argue consistently from scripture why your arguments are sound rather than mine then go for it. Jesus stated that he will separate the sheeps from the goats. This is a sobering passage. It denies the all inclusiveness philosophy that you are trying to inject into scripture.

Actually he is raising a good point. Notably the is/ought fallacy. That is I am gay= I ought to be gay. And then by using an reductio ad absurdum argument he is refuting the claim. I am x therefore I ought to be x. X is drunkeness and we know drunkeness is bad therefore ...

The bible does not trump itself. That would make it irrational and absurd.
I Cor 5:1-4
"1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a][b] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. "
How then shall we deal with sin in the church?

"I think there is enough ambiguity in the bible that a christian could use it to justify whatever lifestyle he chooses." Does the problem rests with the reader or the bible? And again, explain how a thief justifies their behavior while reading Exodus 20. Your statement is to broad to be taken seriously. Yes there are ambiguities, they should be taken on a case by case basis.

People may lie to others or themselves but the evidence does not. For you to use verbal terrorism only furthers caricatures and ad hominem attacks. I would suggest for credibility's sake to address the text itself and explain from an honest intellectual perspective why the evidence suggests one view or another.

This is a post modern fallacy. I.E. if we can't determine truth to a certainty than we cannot have any truth at all. Thou shalt not steal, commit adultery, lie etc is pretty specific. Either it is the case it is mine or it not the case it is mine. The best the LGBT community can do regarding homosexual behavior is to marginalize it to a specific context, i.e. hospitality, pagan worship context. Even if that is the case, they are up the creek for scripture endorsing it.

The heterosexual clergy that I have read concerning advocating homosexual behavior also did not hold a high view of Scripture. They would not believe in II Tim 3:16. Bill Freeman from Holland and the people from Fountain Streeet Church for example. If the LBGT community could put forth a coherent argument and have it pass peer review from other respected evangelicals concerning the bible and homosexuality that concluded that scripture endorses same sex relationships than I would be give it a second thought. But so far I find Paul's thorn to be symbolic of his homosexuality to be pure speculation and unconvincing.

Isn't there a conflict of interest with a gay person interpretating scripture and the result that they desire? Why is homosexuality becoming justified via scripture in the 21 century. Shouldn't have other exegetes come to a similar conclusion throughout the last 2000 years supporting same sex relationships?